On
Election Day the Democrats beat Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo. But
beating Nader-Camejo very likely contributed to failing to beat
Bush-Cheney.

When Ralph Nader met with
John Kerry the mishandling of Nader began. At the meeting Ralph Nader
offered Kerry a strategy for how the two campaigns could work together to
beat Bush-Cheney and advance populist-progressive issues. Kerry refused
and made a not-so-veiled threat against our campaign.

It was evident at the
meeting that Senator Kerry saw the possibility of winning and rather than
making him confident it was making him cautious. This insecure approach
made fear of making a mistake more important that seizing political
opportunity.

Nader offered a two prong
strategy. First, the Nader-Camejo campaign would take aggressive
positions on some issues that Kerry-Edwards were not comfortable with.
These included a rapid, responsible withdrawal from Iraq with a definite
date of withdrawal of our corporate and military interests; a more
balanced approach in our handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue; and
the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Second, Nader suggested
three major issues on which we could stand together. He selected issues
on which Kerry had rhetorically spoken favorably but where increased
intensity would advance the issues and move Kerry from being an “Anybody
But Bush” to being a “somebody” who clearly distinguished himself from
Bush. These issues were:

* Ending corporate
welfare to save taxpayers over two hundred billion dollars annually. This
would level the playing field between large corporations who receive
subsidies, handouts, giveaways and guarantees from their political friends
in Washington which are denied small business. It would also reduce the
deficit and provide funds for the basic needs of all Americans.

* Second, strengthening
the rights of 42 million non-unionized workers who wish to join a trade
union and advocating for a wage all full-time workers can live on at a
time when 47 million American workers ­ one in three full-time workers ­
earned between $5.15 and $10 an hour.

* Third, a crackdown on
corporate crime, fraud and abuse at a time when a corporate crime wave has
looted trillions from innocent 401(k) plan holders, pension holders small
investors and workers. Prosecuting corporate crime would put the
government on the side of the people against Big Business criminals.

These three issues
centered on the foundational issue of the Nader-Camejo campaign, the
corporate control of our government and the need to reign in corporate
power. These were also three issues that were strong ways for
Kerry-Edwards to distinguish themselves from Bush-Cheney. As Nader has
said: “George Bush is a giant corporation masquerading as a human being in
the White House.” Highlighting issues of corporate abuse of workers,
pension and the federal budget would have strongly contrasted with Bush’s
no-bid contracts to repeat-offender corporations like Halliburton, the
corporate executive appointments to the leadership of government agencies
and the ever-expanding taxpayer paid corporate giveaways of his
administration. Appearing at joint events with Nader on these issues
would have shown Nader supporters that there were some areas of agreement
between Nader and Kerry thereby adding legitimacy to Kerry with Nader
supporters.

However, with Nader
highlighting issues that Kerry would not highlight, Kerry would also
differentiate himself from Nader and place himself in the middle of the
political spectrum of the presidential debate but able to stand for
underpaid workers and their families ­ and give many of them a reason to
vote when they don’t usually have one. We urged him to include Nader in
the debates so there would be two candidates challenging Bush, the
political spectrum would be moved from the conservative end and Kerry
would be viewed as the centrist in the campaign.

How many of the 36
percent of union members voted for Bush or the 40 percent of those with
union members in their households would have voted for Kerry if they saw
high visibility events with Nader urging worker rights and fair wages?
How many of those 44% of those earning under $50,000 who voted for Bush
would have voted Kerry-Edwards instead? And how many from those categories
who did not even vote would have come out for Kerry if he had spoken
authentically for their interests?

Instead, at the meeting
Kerry warned us of the coming legal threat telling us of the thousands of
lawyers they had lined up to ensure a Kerry-Edwards victory. Some of us
thought these lawyers were to prepare against Republican harassment,
others interpreted it as a threat to the Nader-Camejo campaign’s ballot
access. And, when we got back to the office the news was not only covering
the Kerry-Nader meeting but the announcement of a new anti-Nader,
pro-Kerry 527 organization. Rather than a two fisted battle against Bush
the Democrats drew the battle lines between Nader and the Democrats ­
diverting significant attention from Bush-Cheney.

Kerry was in the midst of
raising $1 million a day, often from people with commercial interests
before the federal government, many of whom were also Republican
contributors. Perhaps that explains his unwillingness to challenge
corporate power. Or maybe his campaign was too insecure about competing
with Nader’s candidacy.

The Democratic ­ or
should I say anti-democratic ­ effort to trample on Nader and his
supporters began. No doubt it cost the Democratic Party, the Kerry
campaign and their allied 527’s millions of dollars. But the bigger harm
to Kerry was creating negative media attention in battleground states.
While George Bush was talking about bringing democracy to Iraq and the
world, John Kerry and the Democrats were trying to deny voters a choice in
two-dozen states through publicized intimidation, harassment, dirty tricks
and phony litigation.

We received many emails
from voters in battleground states saying things like the three below:

* “I believe that if
someone wishes to be on a voter’s ballot, they have the right, and dirty
politics by the democrats have now persuaded me not to vote for Kerry.”
Nevada Voter.

* “The shameless
Democrats have suppressed my chance to vote for Ralph Nader through their
anti-democratic lawyering in front of a sympathetic Democratic judge! I'm
so angry, I'll vote for Bush.” Florida Voter.

*“I
received my new voter registration card! I had been a Democrat all my life
- but Kerry's Machiavellian henchmen have made me nauseous towards the
party - and due to YOUR actions - I WILL NO LONGER BE VOTING DEMOCRAT.”
Oregon Voter.

The Nader-Camejo campaign
did not give up. We continued to try and give Kerry a roadmap to beating
Bush. Our staff even donned waiter’s white coats and brought him ten
issues on a silver platter to beat Bush. See:
www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=230. But, our urgings
fell on deaf ears. Rather than running an inspiring, visionary campaign
that challenged the elephant in the living room ­ corporate control of our
government ­ Kerry remained cautious and silent on the issues that should
have differentiated him from Bush. The closeness of the race was not
because of the differences between the candidates, but the lack of enough
differences.

The Democrats better
learn from their mishandling of Nader campaign as another thing that comes
out of their trampling on our basic rights is a commitment not to ever
support either of the major parties. The Democrats proved themselves to
be anti-democracy thugs who do not deserve the support of people who
really want a democracy “of, by and for the people.” This fight is not
over ­ they do not want to repeat the errors of 2004 in future elections.

Kevin Zeese serves as Press Secretary for the Nader-Camejo
campaign. His email is
kevin@votenader.org.